If I did decide this was the best way to get rid of Iceytea, why did I use a method where successfully defending myself sheds no light on the guilt of Iceytea since his outburst could easily be rationalized as the mafia targeting him in order to make me look bad?
Because I received my message around the same time you said you did, meaning your message couldn't have affected the action. Or if we're both town, it would require scum to spend two separate actions. And a single player generally doesn't perform more than one action per phase, and if they do, not the same action.
After looking at it hard enough, I see your point, but when I did my defense I didn't lean into that all. !scum me wouldn't have brought up the possibility of you being separately targeted, which is what I think you realized and why you ultimately unvoted me.
to provoke a reaction from the scum who sent it.
What sort of reaction were you expecting?
A post calling out my PM as fake. I was hoping it would have been from someone besides you. I guess Delores technically did as well, but they didn't call out a fake bit, but instead a real bit that had the same meaning as in the unmodified PM. I'm pretty sure they weren't the one who sent the PM at least. Maybe it's a WIFOM, but my gut says that they aren't trying a gambit.
It sure is strange that their immediate instinct is to assume I sent it when doing so would put !scumHeydude in a lot of unnecessary danger.
That's because abilities that can kill generally don't double-target. That I was targeted reduces the odds of another claim being true. Combine that with naming me specifically in the post, before town!you could have known I was targeted.
True, I didn't know you were targeted when I made my post. It really does seem to have been a coincidence, but I don't think it's the unlikeliest one. Out of all the people here, you have the biggest spotlight on you so it's not too surprising that the attacker and I both thought of using you in our plans in some way or another. I am surprised I was chosen as a second target for the double-target though. Maybe they saw me as a weak player who wouldn't react to it well, which I guess they were right about.
What can I say except that you're wrong? I still have a copy of the original infringing post since I sent it to web to have it judged after-the-fact. I compared the two again for you and can say that the meaning is the same.
Much of the meaning, yes, but the original post mentioned my name thrice, while the new version only does so twice. Specifically, the third part of the ability was different.
I checked my saved copy again. I only see your name twice in that one too. I don't know what else to tell you. What do you mean by the third part of the ability being different? The part about revealing my role pm in the main thread?
Unfortunately, though I did get a mafia reaction eventually (which I am proud of), it wasn't through a post but through an anonymous day action, leaving you as the only person to attack me and be read.
Saying once more because it's important: this didn't happen. I received my PM before you made that post, and only a couple minutes after time you said you received it.
Indeed, it's a real shame.
In my response to your next question below, I mentioned that it seems like you got a contract, but if that's the case, I recommend you to pay it off so we can have a proper discussion.
How do you know whether or not I've already done so? Why is a proper discussion contingent on it?
Because I thought there was something about your contract that was preventing you from speaking about the details of your contract. I thought you may have gotten a slightly different contract.